We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Three Outpatient Pharmacy Managers ("OPM") attempted to bring a class action against their employer, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., alleging, among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked off-the-clock. Prior to November 2009, all OPMs were classified as salaried employees, exempt from various wage and hour provisions. Following a settlement of a previous class action against Kaiser alleging that OPMs had been misclassified as exempt, they were reclassified as non-exempt hourly employees entitling them to overtime compensation. An OPM named Jong and two others then filed a class action complaint alleging that, at the time of the reclassification, Kaiser "instituted a policy that forbade the payment of overtime premium to OPMs, while simultaneously refusing to make any adjustments to the duties and responsibilities of the class."

Kaiser moved for summary judgment as to the three named plaintiffs. The trial court granted the motion as to Jong only and he appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's order on the ground that Jong had failed to present sufficient evidence from which the Court could conclude Kaiser had "knowledge" of Jong's alleged unreported off-the-clock work.

The Court based its ruling on critical admissions by Jong, including that:

He knew of Kaiser's written policy that OPMs should be clocked in whenever they were working;

He was always paid for time he recorded on Kaiser's recording system, including overtime hours;

He was specifically instructed he was eligible to work and be paid for overtime hours;

No manager or supervisor ever told him that he should perform work off-the-clock;

There was never any occasion when he requested approval to work overtime that was denied;

He was paid for all work hours he recorded, including overtime hours, even when he did not seek pre-approval for the overtime work; and

He signed an attestation form agreeing not to perform work off-the-clock in accordance with Kaiser policy.

In opposition to Kaiser's summary judgment motion, Jong presented testimony from 18 OPM depositions from the prior misclassification lawsuit in an effort to establish that employees in the OPM position routinely worked 48 hours per week. In rejecting Jong's argument, the Court determined not only that this was inadmissible evidence but also that it did not constitute evidence Kaiser had knowledge Jong (as opposed to OPMs generally and prior to the reclassification) was performing work off-the-clock.

The Court also rejected Jong's claim that alarm code data from his pharmacy cross-referenced with his time records revealed that he had disarmed the alarm prior to the time he recorded beginning to work. Jong argued that Kaiser could have compared the alarm records to his time keeping records and discovered that he was performing work off-the-clock prior to the start of his shifts. The Court rejected this argument, suggesting that the standard for constructive knowledge is not whether the employer "could have known" that off-the-clock work was being performed, but rather whether the employer "should" have known about it. The Court also held that, even if Kaiser had viewed the alarm records, those records merely showed that Jong was in the pharmacy before clocking in, not that he was performing any work during those gaps. Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Kaiser.

Note:

This case reinforces the importance of having clearly written and well communicated policies and procedures which evidence that employees are prohibited from working off-the-clock without authorization, are expected to report all hours worked and are paid for all hours worked. Moreover, employees should attest to receipt and understanding of these policies. This evidence is essential to successfully opposing employees' off-the-clock claims.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Employment: Canada

"The service provided by Lexology has to date been extremely useful and informative. It provides me with a snap shot update of various legal developments and assists me in staying current now and going forward."